Two Mass Shootings Expose Gun Control’s Limitations

As expected, mass shootings in Sydney, Australia and at Brown University in Rhode Island have triggered demands for more stringent gun control measures. However, these incidents demonstrate that most existing gun laws fail to prevent violence.

On Sunday, a father-son team used legally acquired firearms during a Jewish Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach in Sydney, Australia, killing 15 people and injuring 39. The father died at the scene, while the son was injured.

The Brown University shooting occurred the previous day. It targeted a classroom where a teaching assistant was conducting a final exam review session for an introductory economics course. The gunman killed two and injured nine before exiting the scene.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has vowed to strengthen Australia’s gun laws despite the nation already having some of the strictest regulations in the world. He stated that Australia is “prepared to take whatever action is necessary” and plans to “put on the agenda of the national cabinet tougher gun laws,” including restrictions on the number of guns individuals can own.

This announcement has been welcomed by U.S. Congressional Democrats. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, remarked: “If Australia can find courage to act after a tragedy like the one at Bondi Beach, Congress should certainly find the will to act after a tragedy like the one at Brown University.”

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, noted that these tragedies were not about guns but rather about the perpetrators’ intent. “Rhode Island has very strong gun control laws already on the books,” he said, referring to a shooting in Rhode Island that occurred with no gun control measures preventing it. “And Brown University is a gun-free zone.” Gottlieb further added that Australia’s strict gun laws following the 1996 Port Arthur mass shooting did not prevent the recent attack at Bondi Beach.

Gottlieb concluded: “The only common denominator in all three of these horrendous crimes is the evil intent of the perpetrators.”

Police also discovered improvised explosive devices in the vehicle of the Sydney attackers, indicating that the incident involved more than just firearms.

While Gottlieb’s analysis highlights the role of intent over weapons, it is worth noting that much of the recent violence has been fueled by hatred toward Jews. The Sydney attack was motivated by antisemitism, as was a recent flamethrower attack in Boulder, Colorado. Similarly, a pro-Israel Jewish MIT engineering professor was fatally wounded at his home in Brookline, Massachusetts.

It remains unclear whether Rachel Friedberg, the Brown University teaching assistant who previously taught at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and has expertise in Jewish studies, was the intended target of the Brown University shooting. However, her background suggests potential vulnerability to antisemitic attacks.

The Bondi Beach and Brown University tragedies are not arguments for gun control but rather underscore the importance of lawful self-defense. They validate the wisdom of America’s Founders when they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment.

Michael Dorstewitz, a retired lawyer and former U.S. Merchant Marine officer, is a Second Amendment supporter.